Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Second Treatise of Government
Second Treatise of Government
Second Treatise of Government
Ebook186 pages1 hour

Second Treatise of Government

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

3.5/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

English Enlightenment philosopher John Locke has been called the “Father of Liberalism”. Following in the tradition of Sir Francis Bacon, he is one of the first British empiricists, which emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas. His work would greatly influence other prominent political and literary figures including Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the founding fathers of the United States of America. Contained here in this volume is one of his most influential writings, the “Second Treatise of Government”. The “Second Treatise” is concerned with five specific themes in relation to government. Firstly Locke defines a state of nature in which people have perfect freedom in dealing with the affairs of their own person and property. Secondly he discusses conquest and slavery arguing that the conquest and enslavement of absolute monarchy is a violation of natural law. Thirdly he asserts that civil society exists to protect a fundamental right to property by which he means life, liberty, and estate. Fourthly he discusses his views on representative government which may take any form so long as it is representative in upholding the fundamental rights prescribed by natural law. Lastly he discusses the right to revolt against any government that denies the aforementioned rights. The arguments made in Locke’s “Second Treatise” greatly influenced both the American and French revolutions leading to the foundation of modern democracy.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateJan 1, 2017
ISBN9781420955309
Second Treatise of Government

Related to Second Treatise of Government

Related ebooks

Politics For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Second Treatise of Government

Rating: 3.5931173995951418 out of 5 stars
3.5/5

247 ratings10 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    The social contract theorist: when NEW people ENTER the situation without full disclosure and consent, are they part of a social contract?
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Thankfully, we don't analogize the United States government as our parents. Parenthood implies a duty to guide and hold authority over its citizens. However, it was aptly utilized by John Locke to explain how minors are protected in their decision making by those God placed as their guardians, but conversely, government, through a commonwealth, is a voluntary association of men using common law to protect the most precious thing of all: property. And yes, property includes one's self.Laying the groundwork for federalism and arbitrariless ajudication of the law to promote equality and protect our "rights," John Locke writes a persuasive piece on a form of government not really in existance since the Roman empire. It is no wonder why the American Founding Fathers so widely adopted ideas from this writing.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    A masterpiece that refined ideas of the early political philosophers (Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau) into what became American government. I can understand why the Federalist authors relied on Locke and see directly his influence in those works. All of the key elements are there: libertarianism (trade-off of commonwealth to protect property against the initiation of force), balance of powers, ultimate recourse of the people, state of nature, benefits of commonwealth, justice. He builds with the elements of power -- slavery is not a right but a sustained state of war, paternal power is different than power of the government. Regarding robbery, he contrasts the effect of that done by an individual with that done by government, the former being abhorrent, the latter lauded. Regarding the fall of government, Locke draws distinctions between conquest (external), usurpation (internal), tyranny (internal with the benefit going to the tyrant), and degradation into anarchy. The basis of political society is that people give up their natural right of force available in a state of nature to get the protection of property, which includes threat of punishment and legal recourse. The latter provides for the third branch of government. Regarding monarchy, he shows that almost all forms were at some point elective, originally when a king was designated and accepted; later anytime that decision is validated. The legislative is the first and supreme power, being directly designated by the people.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Smaller than The Prince in length of pages but more broad than The Leviathan in terms of affirmative discussion of political structure. Whereas The Leviathan spends most of its time on the state of nature, and The Prince is antiquated in monarchy, Locke disposes with the state of nature quickly, and then discusses what we should do in terms of government. Read this if you can't stomach The Leviathan but have more intellectual interest than those who stop with The Prince. It's important that anybody who has any interest in American government have this on their shelves. A must for political scientists.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Yikes- I'd thought that, since so many liberals (or what in America are called, bizarrely enough, conservatives) take this as a kind of ur-text, it'd be, you know, good. My bad. I should have realized that quality of argument is totally superfluous in political matters.

    Whatever he meant to say, Locke ends up saying very little. He says the state of nature is peaceable and pleasant... and that we form political societies to escape from the state of nature. He writes an entire treatise to describe a legitimate state. He describes a legitimate state as one that originates in a compact between people in the state of nature, and then ignores the fact that there are no such states. (Note to America-boosters: the founders of America were not in the state of nature, they were already part of a civil society. America is the result of civil war/conquest, not compact). The much ballyhooed 'mingling of my labor' as a claim of property rights actually ends up meaning 'mingling of my labor, and that of my employees,' thus fundamentally undermining any justification that he might have had for the origins of property- because he has no account of how some people come to be employers and some to be employees.

    As with all political theory that tries to lay out a rationale for people obeying modern nation states, it ignores history, logic and morality. Still, worth reading- it's short and easy to prove wrong. No wonder it's a staple in first year philosophy courses.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is the groundbreaking work of political philosophy that laid a philsophical framework for the existence of individual rights. Locke considers why people created government in the first place, using it as a basis to argue for a limited government with clear laws created to protect "life, liberty and property." Not exactly light reading for the poolside, but mandatory if you want to understand where the ideology of the US constitution came from.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    A very important work but one that I mostly disagree with (chapter 5, I'm looking at you).
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Locke is boring. And I won't back down from that. The ideas in the book, however, are sound, at least along all the main lines of argument. And it is historically important, shaping influence, etc., and, actually, I think, much more so than certain other so-called Cornerstones of Western Civilization thinkers (Plato springs to mind for some reason). Stripped down to a pot-boiler summary, he says that a government by the consent of the governed, in which is the state is an instrument of the people, is better than having the whole country be prey to some Noxious Brute of a tyrant. And that's true, and at the time, it needed to be said, and there's still something to be said for being reminded of it. (And, of course, there's something to be said for a political philosopher whose ideas can be put into pot-boiler-summary form without producing an Emperor's New Clothes thing, where, suddenly--with say, I don't know, Plato or Marx--you'd just have to censor the pot-boiler summary, or maybe even stop people from boiling water in pots altogether, because if they did that, they might just learn too much about what perfect plans the political obscurantists are cooking up for them.) But I think it might also be reasonably said that, as a piece of prose, this book is no shining triumph. Nope, not the most accessible Treatise you'll ever pick up and read. It's more of a grind...I guess I might add one other thing though. I think that one of the other things Locke was saying was that, in a free country, the government is not your parent, and the state should not be able to treat you like a child if you're free. The relationship that free people have with their government should not be the same relationship that small children have with their parents. It's just that, since Locke's style, if you can call it that, (although I suppose I should thank him for writing in something that can tentatively be called English, which is better than many literati did back then--they mostly wrote in Latin, not least because it was something the ordinary sort couldn't access), is so opaque that you almost can't figure out what he's saying unless you already have a decent idea what he's saying before you start, and then give it a long long time to digest after you're done reading. (7/10)
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I read this book immediately after Hobbe's Leviathan. I found both to be tough recreational reads, but there were sufficient rewards in both to cover the pain.Locke's book makes more sense to my modern mind - he quite rightly puts the view that the head of government (King or whatever) must be subject to the laws of the Commonwealth, and must not be judges in their own cases. This is the fundamental point of difference between Locke and Hobbes.But while Locke may be right, Hobbes is the better writer. While Hobbes is short, direct and punchy in his prose, Locke wanders and is need of a good editor. Often he summarises his views at the end of a chapter, and this reader couldn't help but think that the summary should be at the start, and most of the rest of the chapter ditched.While both want to be seen to be developing their position from first principles, both writer views are coloured by the English Civil War. Hobbes considers the rebels criminals; Locke supports their actions, and their writing shows their preferences.I was also amused to see (Ch 13) that fair electoral boundaries and equal representation was already a thorny issue. Gerrymandering is clearly not only a modern problem.Read Aug 2014
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    When you examine the "axioms" of his doctrine, it is very difficult to take his posterior developments very seriously as political theory. What if access to land is limited?

Book preview

Second Treatise of Government - Digireads.com Publishing

cover.jpg

SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT

By JOHN LOCKE

Second Treatise of Government

By John Locke

Print ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-5529-3

eBook ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-5530-9

This edition copyright © 2017. Digireads.com Publishing.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Cover Image: a detail of John Locke, English Enlightenment philosopher (chromolitho), French School, (19th century) / Private Collection / © Look and Learn / Bridgeman Images.

Please visit www.digireads.com

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II. OF THE STATE OF NATURE

CHAPTER III. OF THE STATE OF WAR

CHAPTER IV. OF SLAVERY

CHAPTER V. OF PROPERTY

CHAPTER VI. OF PATERNAL POWER

CHAPTER VII. OF POLITICAL OR CIVIL SOCIETY

CHAPTER VIII. OF THE BEGINNING OF POLITICAL SOCIETIES

CHAPTER IX. OF THE ENDS OF POLITICAL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER X. OF THE FORMS OF A COMMONWEALTH

CHAPTER XI. OF THE EXTENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER

CHAPTER XII. OF THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND FEDERATIVE POWER OF THE COMMONWEALTH

CHAPTER XIII. OF THE SUBORDINATION OF THE POWERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH

CHAPTER XIV. OF PREROGATIVE

CHAPTER XV. OF PATERNAL, POLITICAL, AND DESPOTICAL POWER, CONSIDERED TOGETHER

CHAPTER XVI. OF CONQUEST

CHAPTER XVII. OF USURPATION

CHAPTER XVIII. OF TYRANNY

CHAPTER XIX. OF THE DISSOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT

SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT

(OF CIVIL-GOVERNMENT)

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION.

§. 1. It having been shewn in the foregoing discourse,

1. That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood, or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended:

2. That if he had, his heirs, yet, had no right to it:

3. That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined:

4. That if even that had been determined, yet the knowledge of which is the eldest line of Adam’s posterity, being so long since utterly lost, that in the races of mankind and families of the world, there remains not to one above another, the least pretence to be the eldest house, and to have the right of inheritance:

All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam’s private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

§. 2. To this purpose, I think it may not be amiss, to set down what I take to be political power; that the power of a magistrate over a subject may be distinguished from that of a father over his children, a master over his servant, a husband over his wife, and a lord over his slave. All which distinct powers happening sometimes together in the same man, if he be considered under these different relations, it may help us to distinguish these powers one from another, and shew the difference betwixt a ruler of a commonwealth, a father of a family, and a captain of a galley.

§. 3. Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the commonwealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.

Chapter II

OF THE STATE OF NATURE.

§. 4. To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

§. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,

The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant. Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1.

§. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license: though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

§. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

§. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature.

§. 9. I doubt not but this will seem a very strange doctrine to some men: but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me, by what right any prince or state can put to death, or punish an alien, for any crime he commits in their country. It is certain their laws, by virtue of any sanction they receive from the promulgated will of the legislative, reach not a stranger: they speak not to him, nor, if they did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legislative authority, by which they are in force over the subjects of that commonwealth, hath no power over him. Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France or Holland, are to an Indian, but like the rest of the world, men without authority: and therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath not a power to punish offences against it, as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country; since, in reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may have over another.

§. 10. Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation from him that has done it: and any other person, who finds it just, may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he has suffered.

§. 11. From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. And Cain was so fully convinced, that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that after the murder of his brother, he cries out, Every one that findeth me, shall slay me; so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.

§. 12. By the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of that law. It will perhaps be demanded, with death? I answer, each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offence, that can be committed in the state of nature, may in the state of nature be also punished equally, and as far forth as it may, in a commonwealth: for though it would be besides my present purpose, to enter here into the particulars of the law of nature, or its measures of punishment; yet, it is certain there is such a law, and that too, as intelligible and plain to a rational creature, and a studier of that law, as the positive laws of commonwealths; nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1